Are Miracles Logically Impossible?

I was surprised by your defense of the value
of eyewitnesses. It's not up to your regular level of scholarship. You
should review David Hume's "On Miracles" (from an Inquiry Concerning
Human Understanding).

In short, no amount of personal testimony is sufficient to establish a
violation of natural law (or even the presence of natural law). Physicists don't
believe the facts of physics because of personal testimony from other
physicists; rather, they believe because they can do the experiment for
themselves. Furthermore, if you don't believe, you can do the experiment and see
for yourself. No lesser standard of proof is acceptable for scientific
explanations of the world.

The miracles of the Bible are not a legalistic claim (did Judas really sell
Jesus out?) but a natural claim (did Jesus violate the laws of buoyancy and walk
on the water?). Personal testimony is sufficient for the law, mostly because it
has to be (prosecutors prefer DNA when they can get it); but it is insufficient
for any kind of description of physical reality. Only replicability can stand
for that, and miracles, by definition, aren't replicable...

-MCP

Hi Mark,

Thank you for writing. You bring up a very interesting argument - one that
has been quite resilient over the years. As you said, David Hume wrote
_Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding_ in 1748 and Section X was
entitled &quotOf Miracles&quot. The chapter argues very deftly that if
rational people have a choice to believe more than one explanation of an event,
they should choose to believe that explanation which is most probable

In fact, Hume argues that miracles are by definition unbelievable. He
writes, &quotA miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. There must,
therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise
the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts
to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact,
against the existence of any miracle.1&quot
Hume further argues that because the only evidence offered for miracles is
eyewitness testimony, and eyewitnesses have been know to be wrong, any
reasonable man would assume the eyewitness testimony in error rather than
believe an abrogation of something as consistent throughout time as natural
law. The probabilities demand it!

The Problem of Hume's Argument

As I said, Hume's argument seems quite formidable- but it's not without its
problems. Whenever someone asks if miracles are probable (or believable) they
are really asking is there a God, and that is the crux of the problem. You see,
Hume at the start of his inquiry dismisses God as a criterion for support. Hume
says we should judge miracles only on the basis of natural evidence - what we
find occurring in nature as repeatable. The less common an instance, the less
rational it is to believe.

If one assumes that nature is the standard for judging the reasonableness of
an event occurring, then Hume may have a point. But by assuming this, one
assumes there is no God that rules over nature. What he does is in effect is
beg the question.

The Reasonableness of Believing in Miracles

However, if we have strong logical reasons for believing the existence of
the Christian God - apart from miracles - then a belief in miracles is not
illogical. The argument can be stated thusly:

The Bible asserts that an omnipotent God created the universe ex nihilo
and governs natural laws.

If God governs natural laws, God can suspend natural laws

A suspension of natural laws is a definition of a miracle.

Therefore if the God of Christianity exists, He can perform miracles.

Using the above argument, one can see that miracles are not placed outside
the realm of logic as Hume would have it. The question really becomes does the
God of the Bible exist.

Hume Proves Too Much

The other problem with Hume's argument is it is so sweeping in scope; it
proves too much. According to Hume, any event that would be considered singular
in nature (unrepeatable) is by definition irrational to hold. Yet, this cannot
be. Take for example the creation of the universe. The universe began to exist
or it has existed for infinity. Now, an infinitely existing universe is
illogical 2. However, Hume would state
that a universe that had a beginning is also illogical. Thus we are left with a
quandary of only two choices available to us, neither being reasonable by
Hume's standards. Yet the universe is here and it is in time! It did have a
beginning. Therefore, Hume must be wrong.

Norman Geisler notes that Hume's argument fails because it "equates
quantity of evidence and probability. It says, in effect, that we should always
believe what is the most probable. What Hume seems to overlook is that wise
people base their beliefs on facts, not simply on odds. Sometime the 'odds'
against an event are high (based on past observation), but the evidence for the
event is otherwise very good (based on current observation or reliable
testimony). Hume's argument confuses quantity of evidence with quality of
evidence. Evidence should be weighed, not added." 3

I hope you can see that a belief in miracles is not illogical at all. Hume
has made an argument that starts with a denial of a God who can work outside
nature, then he goes on to argue that it is unreasonable to believe in
violating nature's laws because it is unusual. But, we have seen that both
counts of this argument are flawed.

I pray that you will continue to investigate the truth-claims of
Christianity. Weigh the evidence for the resurrection and see if it can stand
an objective study.

Ron Wood:

"As a Pastor who is concerned that the congregation I serve is well-equipped, I was delighted with our Come Reason Apologetics Conference. Lenny Esposito led a conference that was intellectually challenging, yet accessible"